Fire House Block Associates, Limited Partnership v. Weston Associates Management Co., Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Fire House Block
Associates, LP
v. Civil No. 20-cv-1117-JD
Opinion No. 2021 DNH 041
Weston Associates
Management Co., Inc. et al.
O R D E R
Fire House Block Associates, LP (“FHB”) brought suit in
state court, alleging claims that arose from the parties’
business dealings. The defendants removed the case to this
court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
FHB moved to remand on the ground that diversity of citizenship
was lacking and sought an award of attorneys’ fees. The
defendants did not oppose remand but did object to an award of
fees. The court granted the motion to remand and directed FHB
to file a motion for an award of fees, with supporting
documentation, which it has done.
The defendants now concede, as the court pointed out in the
prior order, that any research on the issue of citizenship of
limited partnerships would have shown that diversity
jurisdiction was lacking in this case. They contend that they
made an erroneous assumption, and when they recognized the
mistake, they did not oppose the motion to remand. They object
Case 1:20-cv-01117-JD Document 19 Filed 02/24/21 Page 1 of 5

2
to the motion for fees, however, on the grounds that the motion
to remand was unnecessary and the fees requested are excessive.
A. Need for the Motion to Remand
Despite acknowledging their mistake, the defendants, who
are represented by counsel, argue that the motion to remand was
unnecessary because counsel for FHB should have informed the
defendants’ counsel of the controlling law. It is undisputed
that FHB’s counsel notified the defendants’ counsel that
diversity of jurisdiction was lacking because of the citizenship
of FHB’s partners before the motion to remand was filed. The
defendants, therefore, had the opportunity to agree to remand,
which would have obviated the need for the motion, but did not
do so.1
Under these circumstances, the defendants have not shown
that the motion to remand was unnecessary.2
1 FHB also pointed out that the defendants filed their
notice of removal without first communicating with FHB’s
counsel, which communication could have avoided the removal
entirely.
2 The defendants argue that the only reason that FHB filed
this action was to win the race to the courthouse before the
defendants filed suit against FHB’s general partner in
Massachusetts. They state further that “the intention in
removing this action to federal court was to allow the
defendants to then seek to transfer the action to
Massachusetts.” Doc. 16, at *5. These matters do not appear to
be relevant to the issue of attorneys’ fees and do not provide
support for the defendants’ objection to the motion for an award
of attorneys’ fees.
Case 1:20-cv-01117-JD Document 19 Filed 02/24/21 Page 2 of 5

3
B. Amount of Fees
FHB seeks an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of
$5,567.50 for 19.4 hours of work on the motion to remand and the
reply to the defendants’ objection. Two attorneys worked on the
matter, with hourly rates of $267 and $300. In support, FHB
cites Seacoast Motorcycles, Inc. v. Town of North Hampton, 2011
WL 1447734 (D.N.H. Apr. 14, 2011), where the court granted fees
in the amount of $8,807.50 to the plaintiff for twenty-seven
hours of work in drafting a motion to remand and a reply to the
defendant’s objection.
The defendants object to the amount of time spent on the
remand issue but do not challenge the hourly rates. They argue
that the remand issue was less complex than in Seacoast, the
motion to remand and reply required fewer pages, and the motion
and reply did not require 19.4 hours of work.3 The defendants
also argue that because an attorney from the FHB’s counsel’s
firm represented a party in the Seacoast case, “[t]he firm
consequently had access to all of the law and pleadings in that
3 Defendants calculate that the plaintiff in Seacoast was
awarded fees that amounted to $352.30 per page filed and suggest
that the “blended” hourly rate sought by FHB of $300 multiplied
by six pages in FHB’s filings would yield $1,800. The
defendants’ suggested calculation of a fee award based on the
number of pages filed is not supported by any authority and is
not part of the customary lodestar calculation used by the First
Circuit.
Case 1:20-cv-01117-JD Document 19 Filed 02/24/21 Page 3 of 5

4
action and did not need to reinvent the wheel in order to draft
its pleadings.” Doc. 16, at *3-*4. Stated differently, the
defendants argue that FHB’s counsel should have relied on work
done ten years ago in a different case with different issues
rather than spend time to address the issues presented here.
FHB’s counsel reasonably spent the time necessary to address the
removal and remand issues in this case.
In awarding fees, the court uses the lodestar method and
calculates the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by
a reasonable hourly rate. Dowling v. Saint-Gobain Performance
Plastics Corp., 2018 WL 5617547, at *1 (D.N.H. Oct. 30, 2018).
The time reasonably spent must exclude “excessive, redundant or
otherwise unnecessary” hours. Id. In addition, the lodestar
amount may be adjusted based on other relevant factors that were
not included in the lodestar calculation. Gross v. Sun Life
Assurance Co. of Canada, 880 F.3d 1, 22 (1st Cir. 2018).
FHB’s counsel submitted copies of the billing records for
work done on the removal and remand issues. The defendants do
not object to specific billing entries but instead charge
generally that counsel spent too much time on the remand issue.
The court has reviewed the billing records and is satisfied that
the time spent was reasonable.
Case 1:20-cv-01117-JD Document 19 Filed 02/24/21 Page 4 of 5

5
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion for an
award of fees (document no. 15) is granted.
Counsel for the defendants shall pay the plaintiff
$5,567.50, which cost shall not be passed on to the defendants.
The clerk of court shall remand the case to Merrimack
County Superior Court.
SO ORDERED.
______________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
February 24, 2021
cc: Counsel of record.
Case 1:20-cv-01117-JD Document 19 Filed 02/24/21 Page 5 of 5